similar to: samba vfs recycle problem

> That was what I had in mind: the function attribute blocks tail call for statically direct calls but doesn't promise > anything (in fact, does nothing) for indirect calls. > > Do you think we shouldn't make any promises for statically direct calls either? I don't see why it's hard to keep the > promise that direct tail calls will be blocked. Do you have a

On 09/24/2015 03:04 PM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Philip Reames > <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > > > > On 09/24/2015 01:47 PM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Philip Reames >> <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > > On 09/28/2015 10:38 PM, Sanjoy Das wrote: > >> >> > That was what I had in mind: the function attribute blocks tail call >> for statically direct calls but doesn't promise >> > anything (in fact, does nothing) for indirect calls. >> > >>

On 09/24/2015 01:47 PM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Philip Reames > <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > > > > On 09/23/2015 08:48 AM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Philip Reames >> <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at

I've been discussing the clang-side patch and making changes based on the feedback I got for the last few weeks. Aaron has reviewed the patch and he thinks it's OK now. http://reviews.llvm.org/D12922 Do you have further comments on the llvm-side patch or the semantics of the function attribute? Since the last time we discussed on the list, I've made changes to disallow virtual

To be clear, this is a debuging aid only? It's not something required for correctness? I'm somewhat bothered by that because it seems like it would be a useful implementation tool for higher level languages. A couple of thoughts in no particular order: 1) Can we always annotate the call site rather than the function? That removes the unpredictability due to optimization. 2) Calling

On 09/23/2015 08:48 AM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Philip Reames > <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > > To be clear, this is a debuging aid only? It's not something > required for correctness? I'm somewhat bothered by that because > it seems like it would be a useful

+llvm-dev Can you give a bit of background on what you're trying to address here? After reading through the discussion and seeing that this is a best effort flag, I'm not sure that a function attribute is the best way to describe this. I'm open to being convinced it is, but I'd like to hear a bit more about the use case and get broader visibility on the proposal first.

Hi! I have made some extensions to debugfs to undelete or recover files from a damaged ext3 file system. Salvage or undelete files of damaged ext2/ext3 file systems debugfs salvage command can be used to salvage files from a damaged ext3 or ext2 file system. The code is alpha, so use at your own risk. the usage is: salvage first-block count-blocks Salvage tries to salvage files found in

On 2020-05-08 1:34 p.m., Xun Li wrote: > Hi, > > I was looking into the implementation of TailRecursionElimination, and > noticed that we have the constrain that if any call uses a local, even > though it doesn't capture the local, it would still prohibit TCE. This > contain seems unnecessary and overly limiting? I think it's a necessary limitation. The idea is that

What would it look like without this extension? If we modeled it as if all the register values were already on the stack (an extension of the current way where the singular value is modeled as being already on the stack, if I understand it correctly?)? If it's decided that the best approach is to introduce something like DW_OP_LLVM_register - might be worth migrating to that first (basically

Hi: I'e had to set up ices 0.3 overnight to get a job done - our you-bute automation software let us down. I've found you can get it to skip to the next track by sending sigusr1, and the readme reckons sigint closes and reopens the log. I wondered if there was anything to either reload the playlist or refresh the config. My situation calls for two distinct playlists, and I was hoping

On 2020-05-08 2:58 p.m., Xun Li wrote: > Eli, > Yes I was referring to AllCallsAreTailCalls. I will take a look at how > to improve this. > > Nick, > Thanks. I agree that's the proper constrain to mark a call as > tailcall, however not being able to mark a call as tailcall shouldn't > completely kill TCE. (i.e. AllCallsAreTailCalls seems overly > limiting). I

Hi, I'm about to migrate a lot of files from a windows server to a new, shiny samba-server. I just got a small problem : What is the best way to do this? I'e tried rsync, but it croaks on some files with names like "somethign :some.eml" the same does cp. What I'm wondering about, is has anyone else had these problems, and if so, how did you solve them? Do you have a

I encountered something a little strange today. Previously I had enabled samba logging and forgot to disable it. Unsurprisingly my /var partition maxed out. To correct this, I disabled the logging and deleted the (approx 240 MB) samba log file. Strangely I still had a full /var partition. Running df gave me: SRV04# df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad4s1a

Hello I'm testing the VFS recycle stuff on a 3.0.14a-Debian (Debian Sarge, kernel 2.6.8-2). The smb.conf share config part looks like this: [write] path = /sambashared/write browseable = yes writable = yes public = yes vfs object = recycle #recycle:repository = ../readonly recycle:keeptree = yes recycle:versions = yes recycle:touch = yes recycle:maxsize = 1000000

Just a quick check here before I file a bug report. I've just checked if I can use the recycle VFS object in Samba 4 like I do in Samba 3 - and it seems that is not implemented yet. Should I file it as a bug report - or Samba 4 supports/will support this functionality in some other way? Thanks, Sebastian

Hello, is ther any known Bug between libtrash and the vfs-Module recycle? When I delete a file over Samba, the file will not been delete. If I disable libtrash, all works fine. matze

Hello all, I am testing the VFS recycle module, and have a question. The module is working the way I hoped with the exception of the exclude_dir option. I have an entry like: exclude_dir = dir1 -- files I place in dir1 are not sent to the recycle location. However, if I have a folder beneath dir1 like dir1/dir2, files in dir2 get sent to the recycle location. I've tried using wildcards in

Hi, configured samba to handle the deletded files in the recycle directory. My problem : for some users the deleted files go into the specified directory for other the files are just deleted and no put in the recycle directory. Does someone already had this problem ? My configuration [info] path = /samba/info write list = @informatique directory mask = 2770 create mask = 0770 browseable =